2001 SCMR 1630 (PLP)

"Prima facie it is a glaring case of collusion between the officers of the Central Board of Revenue and respondents Nos. l and 2 for ulterior motives. The concerned Collector Customs or for that matter any other Officer of the department is directed to be identified by the Chairman, Central Board of Revenue who were responsible for this unconscionable delay in processing the case and proceed against them under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules under intimation to Registrar of this Court within 60 days." Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner (Government) had urged that the above observations made by Supreme Court call for review thereof inasmuch as the delay that occurred in filing of civil petition for‑leave to appeal was not unconscionable. Supreme Court was not impressed by the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner, because it realty amounted to challenging the correctness of the views taken by Supreme Court in the order now sought to be reviewed which could not be a ground for a review. The Court had given a considered opinion on the plea taken for the condonation of delay in the application moved in this behalf and repelled the same for cogent reasons. In the result the delay that had occurred in filing of civil petition was motivated, mala fide and had to be checked because in almost all the Government cases such pleas are always raised before Supreme Court for condonation of delay which the functionaries do cause intentionally with ulterior motives and then try to save their skin by taking such pleas. Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th May, 2001. MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, ACTG. C.J.‑‑‑This. is a petition for review of the judgment of this Court delivered on 19‑9‑2000, whereby Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1080 of 2000 was dismissed and the condonation of delay sought for was declined. In the above context the observations made by this Court are reproduced hereunder:‑‑ " ....Prima facie it is a glaring case of collusion between the Officers of the Central Board of Revenue and respondents No. l and 2 for ulterior motives. The concerned Collector Customs or for that matter any other Officer of the department are directed to be identified by the Chairman, Central Board of Revenue who were responsible for this unconscionable delay in processing the case and proceed against them under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules under intimation to Registrar of this Court within 60 days." Mr. M. Akram Chaudhry, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of the petitioner has urged that the above observations made by this Court call for review thereof inasmuch as the delay that occurred in filing of civil petition for leave to appeal was not unconscionable. We have not been impressed by the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, because it really amounts to challenging the correctness of the views taken by this Court in the order now sought to be reviewed, and this cannot be a ground for a review. The Court had given h a considered opinion on the plea taken for the condonation of delay in the application moved in this behalf and repelled the same for cogent reasons. In the result, we are still of the view that the delay that had occurred in filing of civil petition was motivated, mala fide and had to be checked because in almost all the Government cases such pleas are always raised before this Court for condonation of delay which the functionaries do cause intentionally with ulterior motives and then try to save their skin by taking such pleas. This review petition being without any meats is accordingly M.B.A.C/36/S Petition dismissed.